APPLICANT Sheldon Lobel, P.C., for Zvi Realty, LLC, Owner
381-04-BZ
CEQR #05-BSA-068K
APPLICANT – Sheldon Lobel, P.C., for Zvi Realty, LLC, owner.
SUBJECT – Application December 2, 2004 - Variance pursuant to Z.R. Section 72-21 to permit the construction of a four-story building to contain 20 residential units with 10 parking spaces. The site is currently an undeveloped lot which is located in an M1-1 zoning district. The proposal is contrary to district use regulations pursuant to Z.R. Section 42-00.
PREMISES AFFECTED – 83 Bushwick Place a/k/a 225-227 Boerum Street, northeast corner of the intersection of Boerum Street and Bushwick Place, Block 3073, Lot 97, Borough of Brooklyn.
COMMUNITY BOARD #1BK
APPEARANCES –
For Applicant: Jordan Most.
ACTION OF THE BOARD – Application granted on condition.
THE VOTE TO CLOSE HEARING –
Affirmative: Chair Srinivasan, Vice-Chair Babbar and Commissioner Collins...... 3
Negative:...... 0
THE VOTE TO GRANT –
Affirmative: Chair Srinivasan, Vice-Chair Babbar and Commissioner Collins...... 3
Negative:...... 0
THE RESOLUTION:
WHEREAS, the decision of the Brooklyn Borough Commissioner, dated November 19, 2004, acting on Department of Buildings Application No. 301866032, reads in pertinent part:
“The proposed construction of a residential building is not permitted in an M1-1 zoning district as per ZR Section 42-00.”; and
WHEREAS, this is an application under ZR § 72-21, to permit, on a lot within an M1-1 zoning district, a four-story residential development with an FAR of 2.38, 20 dwelling units, nine accessory parking spaces, a streetwall height of 32’-6”, and a total height of 51’-6” (including mechanicals), which is contrary to ZR § 42-10; and
WHEREAS, the applicant initially submitted a proposal for a four-story residential building with an FAR of 2.54, 26 dwelling units, ten accessory parking spaces, a street wall height of 48’-10” without a setback, and an overall building height of 54’-4” (including mechanicals); and
WHEREAS, the Board finds the current proposal, with the reduced street wall height and the provision of a setback, to be more contextual with the residential buildings in the vicinity; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this application on June 13, 2006, after due notice by publication in the City Record, with a continued hearing on July 25, 2006, and then to decision on September 12, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the premises and surrounding area had a site and neighborhood examination by a committee of the Board, consisting of Chair Srinivasan, Vice-Chair Babbar, and Commissioner Collins; and
WHEREAS, Community Board 1, Brooklyn, recommends approval of the application on the condition that there be a formal arrangement for the provision of affordable housing units within the development; and
WHEREAS, in response to the Community Board’s request, the applicant represents that two affordable housing units will be provided; and
WHEREAS, the subject premises is a 5,559 sq. ft. irregularly-shaped lot, located on the northeast corner of Bushwick Place and Boerum Street, in the East Williamsburg section of Brooklyn; and
WHEREAS, the site is undeveloped and used for vehicle parking, and is adjacent to a residential building on Boerum Street and a warehouse on Bushwick Place; and
WHEREAS, adjacent to the site, Bushwick Place is 46 feet wide (and therefore considered a narrow street) and dead ends to the south at Boerum Street; Boerum Street is 60 feet wide; and
WHEREAS, the applicant represents that the site was formerly improved upon with two-story and three-story residential buildings, and a one-story commercial building, which were all demolished by 1995; the site has been undeveloped since then; and
WHEREAS, as noted above, the applicant proposes to construct a four-story residential building, with a total residential FAR of 2.38, a total residential floor area of 13,251.2 sq. ft., a street wall height of 32’-6”, a total height of 51’-6” (including mechanicals), 20 dwelling units, and nine accessory parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, since the proposed residential use is not permitted in the subject zoning district, the instant variance application was filed; and
WHEREAS, the applicant states that the following are unique physical conditions which create an unnecessary hardship in developing the site in conformance with applicable regulations: (1) the site’s small size and irregular shape; (2) the site is undeveloped and adjacent to a residential use; and (3) the historic use of, and failed development attempts at, the site; and
WHEREAS, as to lot size, the applicant states that the small lot size does not allow for the creation of a viable conforming industrial building, with floor plates sufficient for modern manufacturing uses; and
WHEREAS, as to the lot shape, the applicant notes that the site has approximately 90 feet of frontage along Bushwick Place and 91 feet along Boerum Street, with depths ranging from 50 feet into the lot on Bushwick Place and 77 feet into the lot from Boerum Street; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also notes that Bushwick Place is only 46 feet wide along the site’s frontage and CEQR #05-BSA-068K
that it intersects Boerum Street at an angle, which results in the site’s acutely angular shape; and
WHEREAS, the applicant asserts that the irregular shape limits the site’s as-of-right development potential because 59 percent of a conforming building’s exterior walls would have street frontage and street frontage walls are more costly to construct than interior facing walls; and
WHEREAS, in order to establish the uniqueness of the small lot size, the applicant submitted a 400-ft. radius diagram with a corresponding table identifying the conforming uses and lot sizes, which illustrates that all but one of the conforming uses in the M1-1 district occupy significantly larger lots, ranging in size from 9,310 sq. ft. to in excess of 100,000 sq. ft.; and
WHEREAS, additionally, the applicant notes that most of these larger sites have better access to wide streets access, such as Johnson Avenue (which is 60 feet wide), as opposed to the narrow Bushwick Place; and
WHEREAS, the Board agrees that the size of the site inhibits the development of a conforming manufacturing building since it would have insufficient floor plates; and
WHEREAS, the Board also agrees that the site’s shape would lead to increased construction costs related to the construction of more exterior wall, but notes that such costs are minimal; and
WHEREAS, as to the adjacency to a residential building, the Board acknowledges that this may not always be, in of itself, a basis for a claim of unnecessary hardship, but it can often contribute to a hardship claim, since the site is typically less desirable for conforming uses and therefore less marketable; and
WHEREAS, the applicant represents that the site has a history of residential use; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted Sanborn Maps from 1965 to 1980, which reflect that the lot was developed with a two-story residential building and a three-story residential building; over the course of time, the buildings were demolished; and
WHEREAS, the applicant represents that attempts have been made during the past 15 years to develop a conforming use at the premises, but these attempts failed because of the problems associated with the unique physical features, including the adjacency to residential use; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the Board finds that the aforementioned unique physical conditions, when considered in the aggregate, create unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty in developing the site in conformance with the applicable zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a feasibility study analyzing the following as-of-right scenarios: a one-story manufacturing building and a two and a half-story community facility building; and
WHEREAS, the applicant concluded that such scenarios would not result in a reasonable return; and
WHEREAS, based upon the above, the Board has determined that because of the subject lot’s unique physical conditions, there is no reasonable possibility that development in strict compliance with applicable zoning requirements will provide a reasonable return; and
WHEREAS, the applicant represents that the proposed building will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, will not substantially impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, and will not be detrimental to the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, in support of this representation, the applicant submitted a detailed land use survey and map; and
WHEREAS, the map covers an approximately eight block area around the subject site, and includes both manufacturing and residential zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, the Board observes that the subject Boerum Street block-front is occupied by at least five residential buildings and that the portion of the block across Boerum Street to the south (Block 3082) within the radius is occupied by ten residential buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Board observes that there is also an R6 zoning district across Bushwick Place; and
WHEREAS, additionally, the radius diagram indicates that there are 21 residential buildings fronting Boerum Street within the radius of the site; and
WHEREAS, the applicant concludes, and the Board agrees, that the area is best characterized as mixed-use, given both the proximity of a residential district and the fact that a large number of sites within the subject manufacturing district are occupied by residential uses; and
WHEREAS, based upon the above, the Board finds that the introduction of 20 dwelling units (which reflects a reduction from the 25 units initially proposed) on this street will not impact any conforming uses nor change the character of the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, as to the envelope of the building, the Board expressed concern about the applicant’s initial proposal, noting specifically that the streetwall height along Boerum Street and the total height were not contextual with the other nearby residential buildings; and
WHEREAS, the Board also asked the applicant to lower the cellar in order to reduce the overall height and to set the fourth floor back so as to more closely match the streetwall of the adjacent residential buildings; and
WHEREAS, additionally, the Board notes that the applicant initially proposed that the building’s entrance be located on Bushwick Place; and
WHEREAS, at hearing, the Board suggested that the building’s entrance be relocated to Boerum Street as this would be more contextual with adjacent residential CEQR #05-BSA-068K
uses; and
WHEREAS, the applicant revised the proposal to show: (1) a ten-foot setback above the third floor and a streetwall height of 32’-6”, (2) the cellar lowered to 2’-6” above grade, thereby reducing the overall height of the building by nearly three feet to 51’-6” (including mechanicals), and (3) the entrance on Boerum Street; and
WHEREAS, as noted above, the Board finds that these modifications enhance the compatibility of the building with the context of the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, therefore, the Board finds that this action will not alter the essential character of the surrounding neighborhood nor impair the use or development of adjacent properties, nor will it be detrimental to the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that the case is predicated on the shape and size of the lot and its adjacency to a residential building, and the inability to develop the site in a way that would be viable to a modern conforming user; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the Board finds that the hardship herein was not created by the owner or a predecessor in title; and
WHEREAS, as to the minimum variance, the applicant’s revised plans, with the setback above the third floor, reduces the proposed floor area by nearly 1,000 sq. ft. and reduces the FAR from 2.54 to 2.38; and
WHEREAS, the revisions also reduced the unit count to 20, from the originally proposed 25; and
WHEREAS, for the reasons above, Board finds that this proposal is the minimum necessary to afford the owner relief; and
WHEREAS, based upon the above, the Board has determined that the evidence in the record supports the findings required to be made under ZR § 72-21; and
WHEREAS, the project is classified as an Unlisted action pursuant to Sections 617.6(h) and 617.2(h) of 6 NYCRR; and
WHEREAS, the Board has conducted an environmental review of the proposed action and has documented relevant information about the project in the Final Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) CEQR No. 05BSA068K, dated April 5, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the EAS documents that the project as proposed would not have significant adverse impacts on Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy; Socioeconomic Conditions; Community Facilities and Services; Open Space; Shadows; Historic Resources; Urban Design and Visual Resources; Neighborhood Character; Natural Resources; Waterfront Revitalization Program; Infrastructure; Hazardous Materials; Solid Waste and Sanitation Services; Energy; Traffic and Parking; Transit and Pedestrians; Air Quality; Noise; and Public Health; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Office of Environmental Planning and Assessment has reviewed the following submissions from the Applicant: (1) an Environmental Assessment Statement dated April 5, 2005; and (2) a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated January 2005; and
WHEREAS, DEP requested the appropriate window/wall attenuation necessary to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA or lower in a closed-window condition; an alternate means of ventilation (central air-conditioning or air-conditioning sleeves) is necessary in order to maintain a closed-window condition; and
WHEREAS, these submissions specifically examined the proposed action for potential noise, air quality and hazardous materials impacts; and
WHEREAS, a Restrictive Declaration to address potential hazardous materials impacts was executed on April 28, 2006 and submitted for recordation on May 12, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
Therefore it is Resolved that the Board of Standards and Appeals issues a Negative Declaration, with conditions as stipulated below, prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, the Rules of Procedure for City Environmental Quality Review and Executive Order No. 91 of 1977, as amended, and makes each and every one of the required findings under ZR § 72-21 and grants a variance to permit, on a lot within an M1-1 zoning district, a four-story residential development with 20 dwelling units and nine accessory parking spaces, which is contrary to ZR § 42-10, on condition that any and all work shall substantially conform to drawings as they apply to the objections above noted, filed with this application marked “Received September 8, 2006”-(13) sheets and “Received September 11, 2006”-(1) sheet; and on further condition: